More handpicked essays just for you.
The relevance of biological theory in understanding crime or criminal behaviour
The relevance of biological theory in understanding crime or criminal behaviour
The relevance of biological theory in understanding crime or criminal behaviour
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the essay “The Medicalization of Deviance” by Peter Conrad and Joseph W. Schneider, they both outline the social construction of social deviance. They also specifically refer to the medical profession as redefining certain deviant behaviors for example, such as “illness,” other than “badness.” Conrad and Schneider argue that the “medicalization of deviance changes the social response to such behavior to one of treatment rather than punishment” (134). The medicalization of deviance means a social process through which a norm-violating behavior is culturally defined as a disease and is treated as a medical condition. Medical definitions of deviant behavior are becoming more prevalent in modern industrial societies like our own. They focus on medicalization of deviant behavior to define and label deviant behavior as a medical problem, usually an illness and mandating the medical profession to provide some type of treatment for it. …show more content…
Conrad and Schneider state that public health and psychiatry have always been concerned with social behavior and functioned like social control. Social control is a process by which groups are brought into conformity with dominant social expectations (137). The increase of status and power of the medical profession takes a toll on handling deviant behavior. The more money and power they received, the more these high professions don’t really care enough so they diagnose individuals with problems they aren’t even facing. There are three major deviances: deviance as a sin, deviance as crime, and deviance as sickness. It is known that anything proposed in science have great authority and great credibility so that is why social deviance designations have become increasingly
...., ISHAYA, L. D., SUMAN, K., BORKAR, U. A., PRUSTY, P. B., SRIVASTAVA, A., GUPTA, S., GUPTA, K., SREENIVASULU, S. E. & JANGUBHAI, N. M. A Conceptual Overview of Deviance and Its Implication to Mental Health: a Bio psychosocial Perspective.
“ Please understand: We do not impose certain rules and restrictions on you with out a great deal of thought about their therapeutic value. A good many of you are in here because you could not adjust to the rules of society in the Outside World, because you refused to face up to them, because you tried to circumvent them and avoid them. At some time – perhaps in your childhood – you may have been allowed to get away with flouting the rules of society. When you broke a rule you knew it. You wanted to be dealt with, needed it, but the punishment did not come. That foolish lenience on the part of your parents may have been the germ that grew in to your present illness. I tell you this hoping you will understand that it is entirely for your own good that we enforce discipline and order.” (Kesey 188).
The first misconception claims that there is the notion that “evil” is only something committed by despots and tyrants, such as the atrocities studied in human history. Second, is the notion that the medical community is complicit in the decline of society by engaging in a “ridiculous pas de deux.” This meaning that eminently predictable problems attributable to bad choices made by individuals are conceptualized and treated as medical ailments, such as depression. The following point states that while few individuals specifically seek to do evil, virtually all of the evil in modern life (at least within non-tyrannical societies) is caused by the choices made by persons throughout their lives. Fourth, the idea that passing judgment on moral choices and irresponsible behaviors is “wrong.” As a final point, he expresses that the state blindly enables the conduct responsible for the decline of society by rewarding and incentivizing personal irresponsibility.
Mental illness has been around as long as people have been. However, the movement really started in the 19th century during industrialization. The Western countries saw an immense increase in the number and size of insane asylums, during what was known as “the great confinement” or the “asylum era” (Torrey, Stieber, Ezekiel, Wolfe, Sharfstein, Noble, Flynn Criminalizing the Seriously Mentally Ill). Laws were starting to be made to pressure authorities to face the people who were deemed insane by family members and hospital administrators. Because of the overpopulation in the institutions, treatment became more impersonal and had a complex mix of mental and social-economic problems. During this time the term “psychiatry” was identified as the medical specialty for the people who had the job as asylum superintendents. These superintendents assumed managerial roles in asylums for people who were considered “alienated” from society; people with less serious conditions wer...
Moral treatment is a treatment that uses “psychological methods” to treat mental diseases (Packet Two, 26). In general, moral treatment was a relatively benevolent and humane approach to treat mental disorders. Before the introduction of moral treatment, insane people were regarded by the general public as wild animals whose brains were physically impaired and usually incurable (Packet One, 11). Therefore, regardless of patients’ specific symptoms, physicians generally labeled patients as lunatics and treated them with the same method (Packet One, 11). Because of the perceived impossibility of curing mental illness, physicians put far greater emphasis on restraining patients’ potential danger behaviors than striving to bring them back to sanity. Cruel methods such as bloodletting were widely used, but their effectiveness was really poor. Moral treatment was a response to this ineffective and brutal traditional treatment. The advocates of moral treatment insisted that mental diseases were curable. By providing a friendly environment that contributed to reviving, moral treatment could help patients to...
Serial murder, which is defined as “the unlawful killing of two or more victims, by the same offenders, in separate events”(Lubaszka & Shon, 2013, p. 1), is a term that American society has become quite familiar with. At a ripe age, parents begin teaching their children not to talk to strangers in hopes of shielding them from the potential evil our world has to offer, but what if I told you the serial killer may not always be the scary man driving a van and offering candy? Our society, like it does most things, has placed a stigma upon serial killers. Although not all implied labels are untrue, this stigma makes us vulnerable to the hidden deviance lurking behind us, dressed in sheep’s clothing. Over the course of this analysis, I will discuss and elaborate on Christine Lubaszka and Phillip Shon’s work, “The notion of victim selection, risk, and offender behavior in healthcare serial murders”. My evaluation will consists of a thorough description of Lubaszka and Shon’s article, followed by a brief critic explaining how their work relates to other forms of deviance, social control, and the material studied in this course, as well as stating a few of the drawbacks and benefits of the authors’ work and suggestions for future researchers.
Before the 1950’s theorists focused on what the difference was between deviants and criminals from “normal” citizens. In the 1950’s researchers were more involved exploring meaning and reasons behind deviant acts. This led to the most dominant question in the field of deviance, “what is the structural and culture factors that lead to deviant behavior?” This question is important when studying deviance because there is no clear answer, everyone sees deviance in different ways, and how deviance is created. Short and Meier states that in the 1960’s there was another shift in focus on the subject of deviance. The focus was what causes deviance, the study of reactions to deviance, and the study of rule breaking and rule making. In the 1960’s society was starting to speak out on what they believed should be a rule and what should not; this movement create chaos in the streets. However, it gave us a glimpse into what makes people become deviant, in the case it was the Vietnam War and the government. Short and Meier also write about the three levels that might help us understand were deviance comes from and how people interact to deviance. The first is the micro level, which emphasizes individual characteristics by biological, psychological, and social sciences. The second level is macrosociological that explains culture and
Deviant behavior is sociologically defined as, when someone departs from the “norms”. Most of the time when someone says deviance they think against the law or acting out in a negative behavior. To sociologists it can be both positive and negative. While most crimes are deviant, they are not always. Norms can be classified into two categories, mores and folkways. Mores are informal rules that are not written; when mores are broken, they can have serious punishments and sanctions. Folkways are informal rules that are just expected to be followed, but have no real repercussions.
1. The main thesis of the article is that deviance means going against the social norms. Social norms are also different for which person. Rosenhan says that pseudo patients are never detected as sane because each staff member has a confirmation bias. The setting of the mental hospital confirms their bias and they read each behavior from every patient and taper the behavior to fit the diagnosis.
Goode, E 2006, 'IS THE DEVIANCE CONCEPT STILL RELEVANT TO SOCIOLOGY?', Sociological Spectrum, 26, 6, pp. 547-558, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 June 2014.
Whatever the term deviance creates , in general it is popularly assumed that 'deviants' are individuals who are somehow less capable, less socially responsible, less adjusted, and consequently less useful to society than their more fortunate, upright and 'normal' fellows ( Social Deviance in Australia, p 4). In the case of Aboriginal drinking, alcohol is the main source of criminalisation and incarceration. This public labelling gives the individual an entirely new status- one which tends to dominate the person's self conception. Once this assumes a 'master status' it becomes the major reference for personal identity and relegates all to other 'normal' characteristics to a subsidiary status. This process insures that characteristics such as sexual preference, comes to intrude upon and influence almost their entire existence. Once identified publicly, (homosexuals), the person is treated differently and expected to behave differently (Study guide p18). The creation of deviance according to Merton is seen as the responsibility of society ( or the law abiding and respectable members of society) and of the official agents of social control ( police, magistrates, social workers, teachers, judges, doctors and psychiatrists) ( Social Deviance in Australia p 5). Merton draws attention to the causal significance of social, economic and cultural factors of all kinds in pushing or pulling certain types of individuals into courses of action which involved rule breaking. Interactionists', however, like Becker are primarily concerned with the role social control plays in the social production of deviance, which may take two main forms- rule making and rule enforcing. As Becker (1963:9) writes: 'social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance... and by applying these rules to particular people and labelling them outsiders. While Quinney states that crime is created. He refers to the social definition of deviance, to the fact that the system of government we have created for ourselves was and is constructed by those who have titled authority and power. Control is exerted through a variety of institutions run by and for the elite (Mass media, education, religion). It is those who are in power who define what is seen as deviant behaviour.
Social deviancy is the violation of social norms. A deviant is someone who rejects folkways and mores. Any action that violates the values or rules of a social group is deviant behavior. In order to actually be characterized as a deviant, the individual must be detected committing a deviant act and be stigmatized by society. A stigma is a mark of social disgrace, setting the deviant apart from the group. Criminality is healthy for society. Deviance affirms our cultural values and norms. Responding to deviance clarifies moral boundaries and brings people together. There will always be people who break society’s rules and that’s important.
Crime is an irrelevant concept as it is tied to the formal social control mechanism of the State; deviance is a concept that is owned by sociology thus our study should be the sociology of deviance, rather than criminology
Deviance is defined as actions or behaviors that violate socials norms. In turn the concept of deviance is dependent on the social observation and perception. “By it’s very nature, the constructionism through which people define and interpret actions or appearances is always “social.” ”(Henry, 2009 , p. 6) One’s perception of a situation may be completely different from another depending on cultural and social factors. The way someone talks, walks, dresses, and holds themselves are all factors that attribute to how someone perceives another. In some cases what is socially or normally acceptable to one person is deviant in another’s eyes. For this reason there is a lot of gray area involving the topic of deviance because actions and behaviors are so diversely interpreted.
There are 5 basic techniques of managing deviance. There is secrecy, manipulating the physical setting, rationalizations, change to non-d`eviance, and joining deviant subcultures. The act of secrecy is easily defined as the word itself. The deviant keeps secrets from those around them. The thought behind it being that if nobody ever knows about their deviant behavior there is no one who can place negative sanctions upon the deviant. Next, manipulating the physical setting, the deviant chooses to avoid negative sanctions by appearing to be legitimate in their reasons for taking part in the act or situation. For example a prostitute may work under the guise of being an escort or masseuse. Another technique of managing deviance is rationalizations. An example of a rationalization would be a shoplifter who justifies their actions by saying that the store has insurance and can afford to suffer the loss. A fourth technique of managing deviance would be to make a change to non-deviance. For example, criminals will refer to the technique as “going straight.” The fifth and final technique of managing deviance is to join a deviant subculture. Joining the subculture makes the deviant feel like they are less deviant because they are surrounded by their deviance.